"I agree with the fact of beaming out there, why not? I mean if we do attract some carnivorous beings and they dine out so be it! Live a little."
Should I explain sarcasm to you?reply to post by Exuberant1

At the other side, there could be life that is thousands if not millions of years behind us in evolution. So there’s no question of any contact with
them as they would not have developed such capabilities.

Your right mike. They're still sending smoke signals in the hopes of proving they aren't alone in the universe. Silly Buggers!

Yea or perhaps "they" know good and well were "here" and have kinda spread the word that this is not a planet you want to try to inhabit sorta
"black listed" us if you will. And consider all the killing our civilization does year in and year out. The greed for money and the tyrant control
of governments who in their right mind would wanna deal with us. Were the bi-polars of the galaxy we love you one day and wanna nuke you the next.

I agree, Infra, and even accepting Observers proposition, we have to ask ourselves, now why would we want to send amplified signals doing more than
beep beep, to attract more, when we don't understand the frequency of the ones we have, who ride in air and water ships, which I assume are hard to
see if they are disguised as a cloud, pond, lake watever, or "air", metamorph into a stone, tree, or black helicopter. because , after all, that
means, they run the show, changed our DNA, guided the pyramid building, and ancients. from the get go..yet paradoxically, adhere to a strict policy
amongst them selves of non involvement, to let us develop on our own.but fail to comply. Some say our accomplishmennts are due due to them, but only
our greed and wars are ours. We are therefore in that vein, hopeless, unworthy and weak, undeserving of the secrets to how to do it better.
Thats why if such a plethora of life forms and ecosystems exist here we don't even know about, and know how a breaking a link can have a disastrous
effect on the rest of the system, and maybe even us, why gamble inviting a biological presence that can overwhelm us, like smallpox and the cold did
to the Aztecs or Mayans, brought by the "conquistadores" to the 'New World", and very well meaning, (cough, cough) Christian monks, on their
crude "water ships", or more currently, like the aids accelerated by our current crude fleet of "airships" globally.

Listening and observation would be the best strategy and should be the only strategy.., but some seem bent otherwise , disregarding totally these
simple lessons, that nature itself has taught us via history, and simple ground based observations.. So thats why Observers , with no disrespect
intended, reasons and reasoning, and I am no logician, escapes me after thinking it out even on a speculative basis.

If alien species find us, how are we to assume they will not be detrimental to our existence rather then beneficial. How do we assume that they are
not evil? Or that they won't perceive us as evil?

Imagine we meet an alien species similar to humans...actually, imagine we meet an alien species almost exactly the same as humans. What will happen?
Humans are not the most peaceful species. Core differences in beliefs (cultural, religious, etc.) are impossible to determine, and we have a tendency
to fight what we don't understand or accept.

When humans have a greater ability to travel and explore the cosmos, I don't have faith that we wouldn't take advantage of another species for their
natural resources. So what if aliens are running out of natural resources in their galaxy? We are sending out a signal letting them know of a planet
where life exists, therefore it likely holds natural resources needed to sustain life.

Now imagine a species completely different from humans. Maybe these beings lack emotions. Maybe they have completely different senses then us. If we
fight with our own species because of differences, what would happen in this case where there are no similarities? What if these aliens are just
really really ugly? Giant cockroaches or something. Do you think humans would trust anything they did or told us?

I fear what we as humans would do after first contact is made just as much as I fear what aliens would do. How do I know that the governments around
our world won't perceive the aliens as a threat when they try to contact us? Humans are not very understanding creatures. I imagine an alien species
shooting out beams of light trying to communicate with humans, and we perceiving it as a laser attack.

And, who is to say that we aren't food? One reason that they may not have started devouring us...well, an obvious reason would be that they are
letting us populate first.

I personally believe its a huge risk we are taking. I personally don't like the idea. But I'm also very interested in the results.

There are worse things than being eaten or annihilated. Just as a for instance, what if some human-produced enzyme turns out to be their miracle cure
for otherwise incurable cases of flzxxxis? What if their moral/ethical constructs don't take effects upon aliens (us) into account? There are just
too, too many unknowns. How would you like some alien patiently explaining that for the greater good, your baby is going to be processed for the
crucial drug component, that you can always hatch another one, you should be proud to help; one who can't comprehend why you'd be upset in the first
place?

The point is that there is no way to predict in advance how aliens might behave. If you accept that assumption, then the only reasonable course is to
minimize your profile and patiently observe until you can make more informed judgements.

And just because we're already emitting an awful lot of noise doesn't mean we need to add a high-powered megaphone to the mix.

There are worse things than being eaten or annihilated. Just as a for instance, what if some human-produced enzyme turns out to be their miracle cure
for otherwise incurable cases of flzxxxis? What if their moral/ethical constructs don't take effects upon aliens (us) into account? There are just
too, too many unknowns. How would you like some alien patiently explaining that for the greater good, your baby is going to be processed for the
crucial drug component, that you can always hatch another one, you should be proud to help; one who can't comprehend why you'd be upset in the first
place?

The point is that there is no way to predict in advance how aliens might behave. If you accept that assumption, then the only reasonable course is to
minimize your profile and patiently observe until you can make more informed judgements.

And just because we're already emitting an awful lot of noise doesn't mean we need to add a high-powered megaphone to the mix.

Good analogy Apache, the argument that we already are leaking signals, is negated somewhat by the fact the signals don't go past a couple of lighte
years, wheres coherent ones would.

The fact is, and this should have been obvious to all, that we do not know what any extraterrestrials might be like - and hoping that they might
be friendly, evolved enough to be wise and beyond violence, is an assumption upon which we could be betting our entire existence. When I was a young
scientist 20 years ago at Jodrell Bank, the observatory in Cheshire, I asked Sir Bernard Lovell, founder of Jodrell Bank and pioneering radio
astronomer, about it. He had thought about it often, he said, and replied: "It's an assumption that they will be friendly - a dangerous
assumption."

And Lovell's opinion is still echoed today by the leading scientists in the field. Physicist Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, has been for decades one of the deepest thinkers on such issues. He insists that we should not assume anything about aliens. "It is
unscientific to impute to remote intelligences wisdom and serenity, just as it is to impute to them irrational and murderous impulses," he says. "We
must be prepared for either possibility."

Lucky for us that any radio communications from Earth are likely to be covered up by the radio noise of the Sun. It is doubtfull that this "message"
will be strong enough to be received at even the closest stars from us. Radio is just not a good way to send signals across interstellar space.

Man, you can't just sit down and listen like a good, little choir boy. Earth has to grab the cosmos by the balls, and say: "Hey, we are the center
of the universe, now listen up!" We got to act like mean, green , alien eatin' machines. Capice?

I think it would be great if we met aliens and they were benevolent, disease free, agenda free... etc etc etc... but that's a perfect scenario and
this is far from a perfect world. Trepidation is the key! A 'come what may' attitude isn't real bright IMHO.

5thElement, Let me make sure I read all this correctly. If I am not mistaken you said that the IMO is incorrect in assuming that an ET could be
"evil." I'm not sure you totally understood what the IMO was getting at. The ET's concepts and mores are inconsequential, as well as the
preconceived notions they may have about Earth's inhabitants. All that matters is reality relative to us, and to us anything hostile is evil. So
what's it matter if the ET doesn't know or care what it is doing is evil? The eradication of our species be it by hostile means or by accident is
final none the less.
We are not a tourist destination. Here in the states most of the population is pissed that illegals are hopping the border. That said, why are these
same wahoos so open to contact with the outside universe. I would be terrified of humans if i were them. Hopefully our primitive "message in a
bottle" will serve as red flag to an would be passer-by and they will get as far away as possible before we dumb them down too.

I personally think that any intelligent ET's (who have mastered space/time travel) could find us easily - regardless of us sending out signals...
I'm more than sure that they have other means to detect/locate us.
Just my two cents...

I have no doubt that this is the case when referring to an intergalactic species. I'm sure they would have other ways of detecting life in the same
way we are starting to look at distant planets and their compositions in order judge whether they could support life.... but...

If you're in a river and the croc swims past you without noticing, don't start splashing!

I was just skimming through the posts and had the realization of just how far this dialogue has moved in the past ten years. I don't mean the guys
who've always thought Earth and the Solar System is a rat's nest of activity. I mean the scientists who used to simply dismiss the discussion. Now
there is a serious and pragmatic dialogue. Not IF there is alien life but IF that life will be good or bad.

I think the consensus in this thread is to keep our heads down until we have more evidence. Apex predators and prey seems to be a fairly standard
model of biology on Earth. We are an apex predator until we go swimming or hiking through bear country. Our locality may be populated by bears and
sharks.

Intriguingly, there's a dichotomy of thought at play here. We can speculate that UFOs are ETs visiting for 60+ years. At the same time we can discuss
'shouting at the cosmos' which negates the 'visiting UFOs' ideas

It shows there are some pretty balanced intellects on these boards. It's cool

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Intriguingly, there's a dichotomy of thought at play here. We can speculate that UFOs are ETs visiting for 60+ years. At the same time we can discuss
'shouting at the cosmos' which negates the 'visiting UFOs' ideas

It shows there are some pretty balanced intellects on these boards. It's cool

I like it too ;-)

I believe that the UFO phenomena does present allow for some interesting argument with regards to our decision to send this signal.

For example, full disclosure about the phenomenon would have to be made by the governments of the world so that Earth's scientists and researchers
would be able to analyze and identity areas of interest. They would have to tell us everything and open all the secret doors.

Alien abduction should be investigated further - if only for the fact that some cases might tell us where not to point the Shothstak ET array....

(Should any of the 'bad' abductions cases or violent UFO encounters prove to be true - then the whole project needs to be canceled and not only
because the risks become obvious, but because the whole project becomes pointless once we know aliens exist...)

In any case, I doubt that our gaining our fully-informed consent will ever be considered

*Kandinsky, I take it you are aware of the Arecibo message sent in 1974?

Hoagland has dissected the Arecibo case in one of his crop circle articles and has found some anomalies that you will find to be quite odd if you
give it a read. (I know, it's Hoagland... but this time he has really found something)

I was impressed at how Hoagland was able to identify Carl Sagan was responsibility for the 'error' of transmitting that data about humans 4.2
billion nucleotide pair per chromosome - called an 'error' because science at that time did not acknowledge the same amount (not even in the year
2000, and at the time of the transmission the number was set by Drake to be roughly 1 billion). Sagan corrected this with the substitution of precise
numbers, which we now know to be accurate.

It appears Sagan took a big chance - or he had access to data outside the common academic sphere that allowed him to manipulate the data so as to
render it accurate - and stop humanity from looking like a bunch of idiots to whoever may receive the message ;-)

Regardless of Hoagland's other statement's, it is quite apparent that Carl Sagan had access to information about the chromosomal nucleotide count
that was not publicly known until quite recently. Also; in all of the publications containing the Arecibo message, only Carl Sagan's articles contain
the correct nucleotide count and do so consistently over the span of years.

As it is now confirmed that Sagan had ties to intelligence agencies - perhaps this would explain his uncommon genetic knowledge and his manipulation
of the Arecibo message vis-a-vis the replacement of the commonly accepted and grossly erroneous nucleotide count with the accurate one... preventing
what would have been an intergalactic display of human scientific ineptitude ;-)

Please check it out and let me know what you think. I appreciate your insights into this sort of thing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.